Humans have caused 1.5 °C of long-term global warming according to new estimates

"Decreasing energy production and consumption is not a real solution."

Why not?

A 5 passenger vehicle can be 1200kg or 3000kg but both offer almost the same utility. A diet of mostly-plants can be just as delicious as one with a lot of beef. Building a house closer to work can be just as useful as building one a long ways away (more, actually).

Remote working is the best green thing you can do :)

You're asking for global human behavior changes. Does that seem realistic?

> A diet of mostly-plants can be just as delicious as one with a lot of beef.

I strongly disagree – as a person who's eaten vegan for over a year, tried all the fancy meat alternatives, and has gone back because a good grass-fed steak is just 10x more delicious.

Probably not working is even better...

>Decreasing energy production and consumption is not a real solution.

To actually solve the problem we need to:

* Decrease carbon emissions to zero

* Get the excess carbon out of the atmosphere

* Do so while maintaining people alive and not in a state of revolt or starvation

With no energy we collapse. Merely decreasing carbon use by diminishing energy doesn't solve the problem. It just makes it get worse less quickly. It's like not having a job and budgeting more carefully while drawing down your savings. Sensible to be sure but the real solution is enabling us to have abundant energy from non carbon sources and putting atmospheric carbon back into the ground.

With sufficient education, awareness, and incentives. I don't see why not.

There's already a massive shift in the hospitality industry with paper straws and bio-decompositable cutlery, saving the world from a tremendous amount of plastic.

> You're asking for global human behavior changes. Does that seem realistic?

https://www.lung.org/research/trends-in-lung-disease/tobacco....

    Long term, smoking rates have fallen 73% among adults, from 42.6% in 1965 to 11.6% in 2022.
    Over the last five years, smoking rates have fallen 17% among adults, from 14.0% in 2017.

He probably means politically, as in "politically it won't be possible to bring this down much." The people don't want the economic inconvenience and politicians are even more unwilling.

> A 5 passenger vehicle can be 1200kg or 3000kg but both offer almost the same utility.

Let's be honest here, a lot of these 5 passenger vehicles carry only the driver 90% of the times. For that use specifically it can be replaced with a 30 kg e-bike or scooter.

... and if you would compare it with those meat alternatives most probably healthier too.

If folks go vegan, go full vegan and accept permanent change in your life, not some desperate half-assed attempts to change as little as possible, which don't seem to work. That's valid for any diet, or any other change in life.

Ie I eat beef steaks maybe once a year. I can really appreciate them, but its just not something that I feel should be part of my frequent diet, can prepare tons of other tasty stuff that are lighter on meat. Control a bit your emotions and understand where they come from, and you can be happy as a clam with any diet.

Sure, but I said mostly plants, not all plants. I’m not trying to take away Thanksgiving turkey. But most of the meat we eat we do thoughtlessly and it’s not especially good anyway.

Sure, we effected major changes by making it illegal to build homes next to jobs so re-legalising that should make a big difference.

I can technically carry five small people on my cargo bike (urban arrow with extra front bench and rear mounted child seat) but people already think I’m extreme for some reason.

I use much less energy here in the Netherlands than I did in California and my quality of life is much higher.

I would think that education and awareness could work for another generation, though them being bombarded with a popular social media image of life it may be hard. Incentives work to some extent (the biggest being a cost of doing the good thing being lower enough than doing the bad thing), but if you will make costs of doing bad things artificially bigger (I know, it is about things the society currently thinks as free) you risk populists getting to power.

You forget that doctors recommend smoking as safe in tabacco advertising back in 40's.

https://tobacco.stanford.edu/cigarettes/doctors-smoking/more...

Could you elaborate on why it's relevant (or missing) ? I can think of different but opposite reasons and I can't tell if your comment is a rebuttal or in support.

You replied on global human behavior change. I just added a piece of puzzle that shows, how implying global human behavior changes are driven by lobby.

And/Or adjust the population to a lower number. Many things are doable. But the collective consensus in not there and will not be there. Having children is mostly a privilege not a right.

Ah, I see. Yes, there needs to be a strong influence (lobbies, advertising, governments, religion, cultural leaders, etc.).

And lies.

"Adjusting population" sounds a bit like crime against humanity :)

Maybe it is privilege but the fact is that lower income is correlated with more children.

So what do you suggest, more mouths to feed, very less food?

( For one I'm not sure that the China route of draconian forced abortions for people with more than 1 kids is ok,)